Opinions and Observations: Mason-Noakes

During Saturday's thrilling fight between Abdullah Mason and Sam Noakes, a key subplot was the divergence between what Valiant Mason (Abdullah's father and trainer) wanted his son to do and Abdullah's own plan for winning the fight. As early as after the first round, Valiant implored Abdullah to move more and focus on boxing, not trading power punches. But Abdullah was determined to slug it out. 

Much of the fight, which was for a vacant lightweight title, featured frenetic action. Mason fired off bombs: left uppercuts and straight lefts to the body and head. Noakes found opportune moments to counter with straight rights to Mason's head and his own uppercuts. After a more subdued ninth round where Mason boxed more, Valiant said he needed three more rounds like that one. And just as Abdullah had done throughout the fight, he mostly ignored his father's instructions and decided to freelance. After a solid tenth, he had his toughest round of the fight in the 11th where Noakes was able to deliver pulsating counters that pushed him back. 

In the end, Mason won a close but unanimous decision. Two of the judges had Mason winning 115-113, as did I, and a third had it 117-111. 

Mason (left) and Noakes went to war
Photo courtesy of Leigh Dawney/Queensberry Promotions

Although only 21, Mason has been a hyped prospect for several years. He has excited the boxing world with punishing offensive displays. In 20 fights, he's scored 17 KOs and features several knockout weapons. 

Of course, there's another side to that coin. He was dropped twice in the first round last year against Yohan Vasquez and has been fairly easy to hit throughout his career. Against Noakes, his chin held up, but his defensive shortcomings were still apparent. 

Despite Mason making Saturday's fight more difficult for himself than it needed to be, he did display several quality intangibles during the match. He exhibited a toughness throughout the fight. He didn't wilt after getting hit by solid shots. The back-and-forth exchanges didn't spook him; he was actually emboldened by them. Mason also demonstrated solid stamina, maintaining a high energy level throughout the fight. And all of these aspects were legitimate questions about him coming into the match. Factor in that he had never been past six rounds prior to Saturday and Mason passed several tests.

However, coachability is a vital intangible too, and one that can ultimately reduce a fighter's ceiling. A fighter has to trust his coach in the ring and be willing to take instruction. Without that bond with a trainer, a fighter is ultimately diminished in the ring. It worked out well enough for Mason on Saturday, but going off script isn't a long-term recipe for success. 

It's clear that there's a significant disconnect between Abdullah and his father in the ring. The question is will this daylight between them lead to a greater understanding or a chasm? 

Noakes remains a solid professional who if the right matchup occurs could one day win a title. Unfortunately, he had disadvantages with height, reach and athleticism in this matchup. He had success by countering, but he couldn't get going as a lead on a consistent basis. Even though he landed his share of solid power shots, he really isn't a true one-punch knockout artist. He likes to grind opponents down, which only works by connecting frequently and imposing one's will on the other, but he couldn't break Mason's will. However, there's no shame in this defeat. In his first title fight, Noakes performed ably. 

As for Mason, it will be fascinating to see if his high-wire act continues or if he adopts an approach that reduces risk and maximizes his chances of winning. In addition to questions of strategy and tactics, Mason also needs to address certain fundamental issues when it comes to defense. Far too often as he was bending down to go to Noakes' body with a power shot, Noakes landed short counters to Mason's unprotected head. Mason didn't make any adjustments to that dynamic throughout the fight. His answers were to throw harder punches with more force. But Noakes wasn't going anywhere. Mason will need to learn that a lot of fighters at the top level can't be knocked out; so, then what? 

Should Mason apply himself to improvement, there are still further levels that he can reach in the sport. Knowing when and where to put himself at risk will help separate himself from other quality opponents. Going to war isn't necessarily a bad thing. But going to war unnecessarily is an issue. These areas of understanding will be needed as he continues to face top opponents. He can't stand in front of big punchers for 12 rounds, not with his defense. And he also can win fights without needing to do so. 

With his win on Saturday, Mason has placed himself on the world boxing map. He's no longer an undercard secret or a prospect being developed away from the sport's bright lights. There's now a 12-round tape on him for opponents to study. He's a welcome addition to boxing's main stage. Everyone loves dynamic punchers. But for him to rise in the sport or even maintain his place, more will be required. It's his choice. 

Adam Abramowitz is the founder and head writer of saturdaynightboxing.com. 

He's a member of the Ring Magazine Ratings Panel, the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board, and the Boxing Writers Association of America.

Email: saturdaynightboxing@hotmail.com

snboxing on twitter. SN Boxing on Facebook 

Boxing Esq. Podcast

I appeared on Kurt Emhoff's Boxing Esq. podcast this week. We recapped the exciting Ring IV card and put our thinking caps on. Are there 12 fights that are worthy of pay per view for 2026? We made our lists. I really enjoyed the discussion.

Here's the spotify link:

Adam Abramowitz is the founder and head writer of saturdaynightboxing.com. 

He's a member of the Ring Magazine Ratings Panel, the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board, and the Boxing Writers Association of America.

Email: saturdaynightboxing@hotmail.com

snboxing on twitter. SN Boxing on Facebook 

San Antonio Current Article on Bam-Martinez

In the latest edition of the San Antonio Current, Enrique Lopetegui previewed Saturday's Jesse "Bam" Rodriguez-Fernando Martinez fight. in the article I shared my thoughts on the matchup. To read the article, click here.

Adam Abramowitz is the founder and head writer of saturdaynightboxing.com. 

He's a member of the Ring Magazine Ratings Panel, the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board, and the Boxing Writers Association of America.

Email: saturdaynightboxing@hotmail.com

snboxing on twitter. SN Boxing on Facebook 

New Rule

In watching Erickson Lubin and Chris Eubank Jr. get blown out in consecutive weeks, I've confirmed a belief that I've held about boxing for many years. With a hat tip to Bill Maher, it's time for a New Rule in understanding boxing. The Rule is as follows: 

Any fighter who voluntarily lingers on the ropes during the early rounds of a fight has reduced his or her chances of winning. 

There are a couple of key points to parse here. Let's start with "voluntarily." What I am stating is when a fighter has his or her back to the ropes by choice, by design. It's not being forced to the ropes because of relentless pressure or recovering from punishment. It's a fighter deciding to dictate the terms of the fight by laying on the ropes early in a bout, when opponents are at their strongest.

Eubank with has back against the ropes
Photo courtesy of Mark Robinson/Matchroom

It's my belief that fewer than a handful of fighters at any given time in boxing can win fights with their back against the ropes even in the best of circumstances. It is one of the toughest skills in boxing to master in that a fighter's mobility is significantly limited. Among active fighters, Dereck Chisora is one who has displayed an ability to win fights from this position. But often, Chisora has done his best work with his back against the ropes later in fights, when opponents are diminished or have endured their own punishment (such as Carlos Takam or Joe Joyce). 

So, in the best-case scenario, there may only be a couple of fighters who can win fights with their back against the ropes, and that is later in bouts after their opponents have endured several rounds of action. Yet many fighters somehow think that they will be successful in a disadvantageous position against a clear-minded foe. 

I believe that there are two reasons a fighter goes to the ropes early: 

1. The fighter is physically diminished (Lubin and Eubank fit this category).
2. The fighter believes that he has a strategic advantage (think Floyd Mayweather against Marcos Maidana in their first fight). 

The first category is self-explanatory. Both Lubin and Eubank had tough recent fights where they didn't look at their physical best. Their behavior in going over to the ropes against Ortiz and Benn, respectively, confirms that they didn't believe they had the physical capacity to go 12 hard rounds in the middle of the ring. In short, they were telling on themselves. They needed a crutch even before the going got tough.  

The Mayweather example is instructive and one of the few times that he got his strategy wrong in a fight. I'm sure that Team Mayweather noticed things on tape regarding Maidana, how wide he could be with his shots, how open he could be to counters. They probably thought that going to the ropes would be a simple way to inflict damage because of Maidana's crude offensive forays.  

They were wrong.  

Instead, Maidana went to town on Mayweather in the early rounds. Mayweather fell into the classic counterpuncher's trap of trying to land perfect counters while the aggressor was banging away on a stationary target with power shots and volume.  

Eventually, Mayweather junked the strategy and wound up winning the fight in the middle of the ring. But that fight is an essential example in understanding boxing. With his back up against the ropes, the best fighter of his generation couldn't beat a capable opponent in that position. If it can't be done by Mayweather, maybe you shouldn't try it either.  

Looming in the background to all of this is Muhammad Ali's famous "rope-a-dope" strategy, where he was able to defeat the heavily favored George Foreman by spending most of the fight punching off the ropes. No doubt this is one of the cornerstone fights in the history of the sport, and perhaps Ali is the only heavyweight who could willingly endure that much punishment to win a battle of wills along the ropes against such a fierce opponent.  

But two things to consider about the Rumble in the Jungle: Ali didn't start the fight on the ropes; he had a very good first round using the entire ring. Also, Foreman's pressure was unrelenting. In the early stages of the fight, it was Foreman who drove Ali to the ropes. By the end of the second round, it seemed as if Ali had made the decision to hold his ground along the ropes instead of burn off more energy using his legs.   

The Ali-Foreman performance is essentially the exception that proves the rule. Perhaps the greatest heavyweight of all time was able to execute that strategy, but even then, he absorbed a ton of punishment. If the decision was so fraught for one of the best to ever do it, perhaps a lesser fighter shouldn't think about doing it early in a bout.  

So, to sum up, if you see a boxer go to the ropes on his own volition early in a fight, it's not a good sign. He or she either has made a strategic/tactical mistake or physically the fighter isn't right. And sure, if we watch boxing closely over the ensuing decades, we might find another exception or two. But I've seen a ton of boxing over the years, and going over to the ropes early isn't a winning strategy. You can call Ali the Greatest, but call everyone else something different – someone who's about to lose the round, or the fight. 

Adam Abramowitz is the founder and head writer of saturdaynightboxing.com. 

He's a member of the Ring Magazine Ratings Panel, the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board, and the Boxing Writers Association of America.

Email: saturdaynightboxing@hotmail.com

snboxing on twitter. SN Boxing on Facebook 

Opinions and Observations: Parker-Wardley

Throughout Saturday's heavyweight slugfest between Jospeh Parker and Fabio Wardley, I made mental notes on Parker's impressive moments. There's a hook off a jab. Here's five left hooks in a row. There's a right hand/left hook combination that landed on the button. How about that jab! That counter right hand was terrific. Parker did so many things wonderfully in the fight, yet in the 11th round, he was the one trapped along the ropes, hurt, with the bout being waved off. 

So, what happened? 

To be fair to Wardley, he had some impressive sequences of his own early in the fight, especially in rounds two through four. But I believe that it was the 10th round that showcased his unique attributes in the heavyweight division. In the first half of the round, Parker had his most dominating sequences of the fight. He was cracking Wardley with counter right hands and left hooks. On multiple occasions, it looked like he stood Wardley up with power shots. There, Wardley looked momentarily dazed, staring blankly into the middle distance, his feet not positioned to throw. 

Wardley (left) with Parker trapped along the ropes
Photo courtesy of Leigh Dawney/Queensberry Promotions

I'm sure most fighters would assume after administering that kind of beating, that they would be in the driver's seat, that the opponent was on his way to being stopped. But it quickly became apparent that Wardley was far different from a typical opponent. 

Somehow after being battered throughout the round, Wardley was able to shake it off and march forward. He unleashed menacing power shots as if the previous punishment hadn't occurred. After a few short moments, now it was Parker hurt and diminished, stuck along the ropes. In one of the most thrilling rounds of the year, Wardley showed that he possesses almost superhuman recuperative powers.

The 11th round was a continuation of the end of the 10th, with Wardley unloading on a trapped Parker. Eventually, referee Howard Foster stepped in to stop the fight (more on this later). 

Fabio Wardley has a singular story in boxing. A product of the white-collar boxing scene in the U.K., Wardley had no real amateur background and came to the sport late. During his development fights, he was a wild swinger who did all sorts of technical things wrong in the ring. His defense could be subpar. His footwork was ponderous. He would lean over his body while throwing shots, but the results were almost always the same: Wardley by knockout. 

But Wardley has improved under trainer Ben Davison's tutelage. Although I didn't have him winning Saturday's fight after the tenth round, I certainly thought that he was competitive. And this was against Parker, one of the best technical fighters at heavyweight, and an opponent with a significant punch. 

On Saturday, Wardley was able to land with snapping right hands. He connected with a couple of cracking, short right uppercuts and he had periods where his jab scored with regularity. He wasn't a gimmick fighter; he was performing like the solid heavyweight that he has become, with multiple knockout weapons and an irrepressible will. Despite his late start in the sport, he now has beaten multiple contenders and remains undefeated with a record of 20-0-1 with 19 knockouts. 

Wardley's last two fights have ended in second-half stoppages. He was down on the cards in both fights, but he was undeterred. And just as importantly, he has the conditioning to undertake physically grueling fights and still wind up on top. 

Perhaps this might not be the greatest recipe for a long career, but so what? Wardley wasn't expected to progress to this point. This is what he has to work with. And there's no blueprint of what a top heavyweight must look like or do in the ring, except win.

Who knows how long this ride will continue? He's won fights when well behind; he's prevailed as an underdog; and he's beaten fighters with far more pedigree. He continues to get stoppages even as he moves up the heavyweight ladder. He possesses a rare ability to carry late power. And this isn't like he's trailing in cagey fights where not much has happened. No, he's taking beatings, but he refuses to yield. And he will keep throwing his thunder. It's thrilling to watch. 

Wardley after the victory
Photo courtesy of Leigh Dawney/Queensberry 

If I can level one criticism of Parker, it's that too often he gets into shootouts. Let's go back to the tenth. He had already dominated Wardley throughout the first half of the round. Once Parker got tagged with a big shot from Wardley, he could have immediately tied up. Even with that one shot, Parker would still be well ahead in the round. 

But that's not what Parker did. Despite getting hit a lot at the end of the round, he still wanted to trade. He was trying to find that one big shot to hurt Wardley, to reverse the tide. He wound up giving back his edge in the round, and in the fight, even when he didn't have to. One could praise Parker for his self-belief, but maybe his performance illustrates his issues with over-confidence and not respecting his opponent enough. Parker had similar problems in his loss to Joe Joyce. He also could have boxed much more than he did in his grueling fights with Dereck Chisora. 

Parker usually likes to stay around the pocket, which he believes helps him because of his advantages with accuracy and his large punch arsenal. But the problem with fighters who linger a little too much is that they are hittable. 

I'm not suggesting that Parker stink out fights to win, but he needs to understand fight dynamics better. For example, Usyk is a master of knowing when he has a round won. And he will pocket that 10-9, wait out the round, and go after his opponent when the next one starts. Parker doesn't have the same impulses. He will be looking throughout all three minutes of a round to connect, even when he is well ahead. It's certainly not the best fight management strategy. 

***

After the fight I had this vision of Howard Foster standing at attention in the ring, saluting the Union Jack hanging from the rafters of the O2 Arena, a single tear sliding down his cheek. Yet again, he had performed for his country. He had done his part for The Crown. 

As far as Howard Foster stoppages go, Saturday's wasn't his worst (take a look at his performance in the Dubois-Lerena fight), but it was still bad, and as too often the case, his decision making helped the hometown English fighter at the expense of the foreign opponent. 

Although Wardley was unloading in the 11th round and Parker was hurt, there was no singular shot that necessitated Foster to stop the fight. Parker still had his wits in the ring. He was blocking or ducking a lot of the punches; he looked lucid. Foster's stoppage made perfect sense if a referee was looking for an opportunity to end the fight. But if an arbiter was more interested in seeing a fight play out to its natural conclusion, then that moment was not the place for a referee to insert himself. 

Of the referees who get high-profile assignments in the sport, Foster may be the worst homer. It's baffling as to why he is allowed to persist. Or maybe it's not. 

And this isn't an exercise in second-guessing. As soon as I saw Foster announced prior to the start of the fight, I made a note how this could help Wardley. And again, this was before a punch was ever thrown. 

I shouldn't have to know this about a referee. Officials like Foster hurt the legitimacy of the sport. Boxing deserves better. And as great a fight as Saturday's was, it was perhaps 90% of what it could have been. Howard Foster needed to end that fight when he did. He didn't have to. But, I guess...duty called. 

***

Let's not end this on a sour note. We all enjoyed a great fight on Saturday. Parker and Wardley continued the tremendous run of excitement in this heavyweight era. There's probably been over 20 heavyweight fights over the last decade that have been truly special affairs. Parker has already been in several, against Chisora, Whyte and Joyce. Wardley had that memorable first battle with Frazer Clarke. 

It's been a terrific era for heavyweight boxing. We've seen the cream rise to the top (Usyk) against champs and tough challengers. We've marveled at the journeys of relatively unknowns or supposed lessers, like Kabayel and Wardley, who have become true threats to the throne. Along the way, we've seen memorable upsets, great individual runs, and so many thrilling nights in the ring. Yes, there will always be the scolds who will tell you how things were so much better during yesteryear, but missing out on today's heavyweight boxing has been their loss. This current era has delivered time after time. It's been wonderful.  

Adam Abramowitz is the founder and head writer of saturdaynightboxing.com. 

He's a member of the Ring Magazine Ratings Panel, the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board, and the Boxing Writers Association of America.

Email: saturdaynightboxing@hotmail.com

snboxing on twitter. SN Boxing on Facebook 

2025 IBHOF Ballot

Here's my 2025 ballot for the International Boxing Hall of Fame. I selected Gennadiy Golovkin, Santos Laciar, Gilberto Roman and Pongsaklek Wonjongkam. 

Adam Abramowitz is the founder and head writer of saturdaynightboxing.com. 

He's a member of the Ring Magazine Ratings Panel, the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board, and the Boxing Writers Association of America.

Email: saturdaynightboxing@hotmail.com

snboxing on twitter. SN Boxing on Facebook 

How to Take Away the Jab -- Ring Magazine

I have a new "How to Watch Boxing" column in the November edition of Ring Magazine. The column is about how to take away the jab and features perspectives from trainers Robert Garcia and Stephen "Breadman" Edwards. The magazine is available on newsstands now. 

Adam Abramowitz is the founder and head writer of saturdaynightboxing.com. 

He's a member of the Ring Magazine Ratings Panel, the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board, and the Boxing Writers Association of America.

Email: saturdaynightboxing@hotmail.com

snboxing on twitter. SN Boxing on Facebook 

Notes from the Ennis-Lima Card

During the opening moments of Saturday's Jaron "Boots" Ennis-Uisma Lima 154-lb. bout, Boots fought in the orthodox stance. After a minute, he switched to southpaw. As soon as the switch happened, Lima started tagging him with straight left hands. But then Boots returned fire and they traded heavy artillery. In an exchange, Boots landed an enormous, winging left hand that instantly stunned Lima. Boots then followed up with a perfectly placed right hook to the chin, one that didn't even have his full force behind it; Lima hit the canvas. Lima would go down again later in the round and the fight was quickly stopped after Lima made it to his feet a second time, with Ennis unloading as Lima was trapped on the ropes. 

That first knockdown sequence illustrated the multiple facets that Boots possesses in the ring. He showed the ferocity of a big puncher, but the knockdown blow occurred from an almost surgically precise right hook. Even in a moment when bombs were flying, Ennis had the focus and poise to drop the perfect punch. That right hook more than anything else in the short fight impressed me the most; that was a finisher's punch. A lot of people can hurt a guy, but how many can take a little steam off a shot during a period of high adrenaline to land the coup de grace?

Photo courtesy of Matchroom Boxing

I have one important question regarding Boots and his ability to switch stances: Is he Terence Crawford or Danny Jacobs? By that I mean, did he switch because he saw something or knew something, like Crawford does, or was he switching just to switch, which is always a criticism I had of Jacobs. Just because one can switch, it doesn't make it the right move. 

Boots spends a lot of time fighting in both stances. To this point I'm not sure which stance is his best and I'm curious to know if he has a level of understanding about his own strengths and weaknesses. When evaluating Crawford, I always knew that he turned lefty when he wanted to be more defensively responsible. But I have yet to discern Ennis' patterns. Is he a gifted athletic puncher who can do all sorts of crazy stuff in the ring, or is he a boxing master who understands what will and will not work for himself or his opponents? Can one be both? 

To be determined. 

***

Every now and then you'll hear someone in boxing, usually a fighter, but occasionally a trainer, proudly boast that he doesn't watch tape of an opponent. Although these bold pronouncements are often met with disbelief and ridicule, I believe that there is a little something to this method of madness. I will never advocate for not studying an opponent, but make no mistake, the tape can play tricks on an observer and lead to a false sense of security. 

Case and point, in Saturday's Alexis Barriere-Guido Vianello fight, Vianello fought in a style that I had not seen him ever utilize in the ring. Barriere was supposed to be the puncher in the fight and Vianello had often featured his legs, hand speed and craftiness to win his big fights. 

Yet on Saturday, Vianello fought as the flat-footed slugger. He didn't concede the pocket or rely on movement. He methodically marched forward behind big shots. It's like he suddenly morphed into Anthony Joshua or Martin Bakole. He was there to take Barriere out. 

There's no doubt that Barriere and his team were spooked. Barriere, usually a front-foot slugger himself, had to resort to being a counterpuncher. And while he got some good work done, especially in the third round, by the fourth, he was sent to the canvas after a flurry of power punches. One round later, Vianello ended things with a cuffing right hand. 

It's unusual to see a fighter at the advanced stages of his career utilize a new style and do so with such success (Fury in the second Wilder fight is another recent example). Yet Vianello shocked Barriere with his audacious play. Vianello looked like a completely different fighter in the ring and made a big statement in the heavyweight division. 

What we thought we knew about Vianello was wrong. The tape can often paint an incomplete picture, an important point to remember about matchups. There is often a wide gulf of uncertainty in how a fight may play out. For the "styles make fights" crowd, here was an example of a guy completely junking his past style and obliterating all conventional wisdom about what was supposed to occur in this matchup. Just remember, we often know far less about boxing than we think we do. 

***

Although Ennis-Lima was mocked online after the card ended as an example of poor matchmaking, I'll say this: the event played well for the Philadelphia crowd in the arena. They loved how ferociously Boots went after and finished Lima. That heavyweight fight between Barriere and Vianello produced the goods. They loved the daredevil performance from Philly's Dennis Thompson in his win against Sean Diaz. Another Philadelphian, Tahmir Smalls, produced a couple of oohs and aahs from the crowd during his competitive fight against Jose Roman. 

It was a boisterous crowd on Saturday night and they got their entertainment. Sure, in a perfect world, Lima would have put up more resistance. But the Philadelphia fighters showed up and delivered. Boots was electric. Thompson and Smalls were easily in against their best opponents, and both performed well. If Boots-Lima had followed a drab, one-sided undercard, I bet the feeling in the crowd would have been much different. But those in Philly received value for their money. They went home happy.  

Adam Abramowitz is the founder and head writer of saturdaynightboxing.com. 

He's a member of the Ring Magazine Ratings Panel, the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board, and the Boxing Writers Association of America.

Email: saturdaynightboxing@hotmail.com

snboxing on twitter. SN Boxing on Facebook